BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

24 results for “depreciation”+ Section 56clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,886Delhi1,659Bangalore694Chennai466Kolkata344Ahmedabad288Hyderabad176Jaipur150Chandigarh128Pune87Indore82Raipur67Surat64Amritsar57Lucknow50Karnataka45Cochin40Visakhapatnam34Rajkot33Cuttack28Jodhpur25SC24Guwahati22Ranchi20Nagpur17Allahabad11Agra10Calcutta9Telangana9Dehradun8Panaji7Kerala6Varanasi5Patna3Gauhati1Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Orissa1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 8013Deduction12Section 17(5)(d)7Depreciation6Section 36(1)(iii)5Section 43(1)5Section 143(2)5Section 325Section 260A4Section 28

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

C.A. No.-004072-004072 - 2014Supreme Court19 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 32(1)(ii)

depreciation. 14.13. Summing up his arguments, Mr. Dwarakanath asserts that firstly, non-compete fee is not a revenue expenditure but a capital expenditure. Secondly, even though it is a capital expenditure leading to accrual of intangible asset, it is not eligible for deduction because it is not ‘owned’ and ‘used’ by the assessee for the purpose of its business

PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8(2) MUMBAI

C.A. No.-000238-000238 - 2012Supreme Court09 Oct 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 143(1)(a)

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

4
Addition to Income4
Capital Gains2
Section 32
Section 80

56 at Page 62). Thirdly, the Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Mills (supra) has not laid down any proposition of law that by disclaiming depreciation, the assessee can claim enhanced deduction allowable under any other provision in the Act. 32. The choice or the option available to an assessee to claim 15 or not to claim current depreciation

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-003738-003739 - 2023Supreme Court16 May 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 260A

56 We, therefore, need not go into the questions involving trusts where a person holds the property and receives the income in trust for others who are the legal beneficiaries. The crux of the matter is as to whether, as already stated above, the actual possession in a given particular case gives a right to retain such a possession until

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

C.A. No.-013771-013771 - 2015Supreme Court06 Dec 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 260ASection 80

depreciation specified in Appendix-1A in terms of sub-rule (1A) of Rule 5 which the assessee has done. If that be the position, we find no merit in the question proposed by the revenue. The same is therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORE HEALTH CARE LTD

C.A. No.-003952-003955 - 2002Supreme Court08 Feb 2008
For Respondent: M/s. Core Health Care Ltd
Section 260ASection 28Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43(1)

Depreciation is not there in Section 36(1)(iii). That is why the legislature has used the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Hence, Explanation 8 has no relevancy to Section 36(1)(iii). It has relevancy to the aforementioned enumerated sections. Therefore, in our view Explanation 8 has no application to the facts of the present case. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

M/S KARNATAKA SMALL S.INDT.DEV.COR.LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BANGALORE

C.A. No.-000823-000823 - 2000Supreme Court03 Dec 2002
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore
Section 115Section 115JSection 115J(1)Section 256(1)Section 28Section 32Section 72Section 73Section 74Section 74A

depreciation as on April 1998 remained intact and was not written off or obliterated by computation of income of 30 per cent of the book profit under section 115-J. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel for another appellant/assessee has adopted these arguments and has further submitted that the fiction of the assessable income under section 115-J could

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

C.A. No.-002206-002206 - 2009Supreme Court08 Apr 2009
Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)

depreciation and allowances are dealt with in Section 32. Therefore, Parliament has used the expression “any expenditure” in Section 37 to cover both. Therefore, the expression “expenditure” as used in Section 37 may, in 11 the circumstances of a particular case, cover an amount which is really a “loss” even though the said amount has not gone out from

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

C.A. No.-008750-008750 - 2014Supreme Court15 Sept 2014
Section 113Section 132Section 154Section 158B

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. Civil Appeal No.________ of 2014 & connected matters Page 17 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX vs. M/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

C.A. No.-002948-002948 - 2023Supreme Court03 Oct 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 17Section 17(5)(c)Section 17(5)(d)

depreciation and ITC. 29. Now we come to sub-Section (4) of Section 16. Before the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022, the sub-section read thus: “16. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (4) A registered person shall not be entitled to take input tax credit in respect of any invoice or debit note for supply of goods or services or both after

VODAFONE IDEA LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 26 (2)

C.A. No.-002377-002377 - 2020Supreme Court29 Apr 2020

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(2)Section 244ASection 92

depreciation as claimed and by taxing the interest income of Rs.1,07,85,590 as income from other sources and thus raised the demand of Rs. 1,30,83,741 under various heads and sections of taxes, surcharge and additional tax under Sections 143(1A), 234A and 234B. 4. Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, has contended that

JT. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT vs. UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD., GUJARAT

Appeal is partly allowed with no order as to cost

C.A. No.-001183-001183 - 2008Supreme Court08 Feb 2008
For Respondent: M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd
Section 260ASection 32(1)Section 34(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

56 in which it has been held that the assessee has an option to claim depreciation. However, Section 34(1) of the Income

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

C.A. No.-005769-005769 - 2022Supreme Court10 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 26Section 6(3)

56 of 67 Kolah says that the two powers-of-attorney go to show that whatever legal or juridical control and management the company might have had, in fact the actual management was exercised by the two managers in Ceylon. In our opinion this is not a case where the company did nothing with regard to the actual management

M/S DALMIA POWER LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-009496-009499 - 2019Supreme Court18 Dec 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

Section 139Section 139(5)

56,89,83,608/­).  2.4 With   a   view   to   restructure   and   consolidate   their businesses,   and   enable   better   realisation   of   the potential   of   their   businesses,   which   would   yield beneficial   results,   and   enhanced   value   creation   for their   shareholders,   better   security   to   their   creditors and   employees,   the   Appellants   (also   referred   to   as “Transferee Companies” or “Amalgamated Companies”) entered into 4 interconnected Schemes

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016
Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

Section 583(4)(a) thereof. The said petition was registered as Company Petition No. 1 of 1988. Significantly, though the firm stood dissolved on December 06, 1987, and thereafter Company Petition No. 1 of 1988 for the winding up proceedings after dissolution was filed in the High Court, the business of the partnership firm continued because of the interim order

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

C.A. No.-001337-001337 - 2003Supreme Court11 Jan 2010
Section 145Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 37(1)

depreciation in investments in the Balance Sheet under “Current Liabilities and Provisions” and that such provision for each year shall be debited to P&L Account so that a true and correct figure of “Net Profit” gets reflected in the financial accounts of the company. The effect of such Disclosure is to increase the current liabilities by showing the provision

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 12AA(1) of the IT Act, on 18.05.1979 and is engaged in the activity of promotion of the export of all kind of ready-made garments, knitwear, and garments made of leather, jute and hemp. It does not per se engage in any activity for profit, and its mandate is to ensure that Indian apparel manufacturers, are given forums

CHECKMATE SERVICES P LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I

C.A. No.-002833-002833 - 2016Supreme Court12 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 2Section 2(24)(x)Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

56:35 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 J U D G M E N T S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. Leave granted. Berger Paints India Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-IV & Anr.1 was the lead matter while hearing this batch of appeals. However, the parties agreed to treat Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Income

WIPRO FINANCE LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed

C.A. No.-006677-006677 - 2008Supreme Court12 Apr 2022
Section 143(1)(a)Section 254Section 37Section 43A

56,57,727/­ being revenue expenditure, suitable amends will have to be effected in the final assessment order passed by the assessing officer for the concerned assessment year, thereby treating the   consequential   benefits   such   as   depreciation   availed   by   the appellant­assessee in relation to the stated amount towards exchange fluctuation   related   to   leased   assets   capitalised   (being Rs.2

ASSTT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX I NEW DELHI vs. M/S E FUNDS IT SOLUTION INC

C.A. No.-006082-006082 - 2015Supreme Court24 Oct 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

depreciation, investment losses, deductible expenses, carry- forward and set-off losses, etc. However, deviations are made by DTAA in cases of royalty, interest, etc. Such deviations are also made under the IT Act (for example Sections 44-BB, 44-BBA, etc.). 36. Under the impugned ruling delivered by AAR, remuneration to MSAS was justified by a transfer pricing analysis

NAVIN JINDAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-000634-000634 - 2006Supreme Court11 Jan 2010
Section 48(2)

depreciation in the value of 1500 original share of JISCO as a result of right issue of PCDs after adjusting the profit realized on a/c of discussed above Less : Deduction u/s 48(2): On Rs.15000/- @ 100% On Rs.2303200/- @ 60% (B) Net Income under the head “capital gains” (A) + (B) 56